recognizing automobile insurers are not obliged to protect their insureds against losses that fall under the workers’ compensation scheme and that “[t]he terms of [§ 7-324] clearly relieve insurers of any legal obligation to include in the standard motor vehicle liability policy a provision for indemnity against employment-related harm”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing automobile insurers are not obliged to protect their insureds against losses that fall under the workers’ compensation scheme and that “[t]he terms of [§ 7-324] clearly relieve insurers of any legal obligation to include in the standard motor vehicle liability policy a provision for indemnity against employment-related harm”
- "[A]utomobile liability insurers are not obligated by law to protect their insureds against responsibility which falls within the workers' compensation reparations regime. The terms of 47 O.S.1981 § 7-324(f) clearly relieve insurers of any legal obligation to include in the standard *1174motor vehicle liability policy a provision for indemnity against employment-related harm."
- applying 85 O.S.Supp.1984 § 12
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALMA WILSON, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
It is settled in this jurisdiction that an employee is immune from tort liability for injury tó a co-employee when the co-employee receives workers’ compensation for the injury. 85 O.S.Supp.1984, § 12; Barfield v. Barfield, 742 P.2d 1107 (Okla.1987); Carroll v. District Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District, 579 P.2d 828 (Okla.1978). Accordingly, I concur with the majority opinion insofar as it protects the Defendant, Hudson, as a co-employee from tort liability to the Plaintiffs.
The duty of Hudson’s liability carrier to defend her in this action is not removed by § 12 and 47 O.S.1981, § 7-324(f). Section 7 — 324(f) is not applicable to the instant action by injured co-employees against a co-employee driver. Subsection (f) does not authorize exclusion of injury to co-employees, as third party beneficiaries, from the compulsory liability coverage of a co-employee’s private passenger vehicle. Subsection (f) is limited to motor vehicle liability policies of employers. It allows the motor vehicle liability insurance carrier of the employer to issue a liability policy which relieves the carrier of the duties as a workers’ compensation carrier for the employer, except employers of domestic employees. This is the standard exclusion in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy. A liability insurance carrier is not relieved of its duty to defend its insured by § 7 — 324(f), even if the insured is an employer and even if the defense simply requires pleading and proving the affirmative defense of § 12 exclusivity of workers’ compensation liability. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it extends the § 12 grant of immunity to protect the liability carrier of a co-employee from its duty to defend under the liability insurance policy.
Plaintiffs filed this action against Hudson alleging negligent operation of her motor vehicle and against Farmers Insurance Company as the underinsured motorist insurance carrier for Hudson and Mid-Continent Casualty Company as the underin-sured motorist insurance carrier for Plaintiff Deffenbaugh. Both underinsured motorist insurance claims have been settled and the carriers have been dismissed with prejudice from this action. Thus, underin-sured motorist insurance coverage in De *92 fendant Hudson’s liability policy is a moot issue. The erroneous expansion of immunity under § 12 to a liability carrier by majority opinion certainly can not be further extended to preclude uninsured/underin-sured motorist coverage. Barfield v. Barfield, supra.